The full title of the book: The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism indicates clearly the perspective and inclinations of the author. The author, Andrew J. Bacevich is a retired U.S. Army Colonel who now holds the position of Professor of History and International Relations at Boston University. Additionally and tragically Professor Bacevich lost his son in Iraq in 2007. I am going to break this review into sections: 1. Thesis 2. Summary 3. Critique 4. How the DailyKos community can use this book. Since readers around here seem to be less tolerant of long diaries, I addressed 1 and 2 yesterday, and in this diary, I will address parts 3 and 4. If you missed yesterday here's the link:
The Limits of Power, Part I
Critique
The Limits of Power appears to have been written with a dual purpose in mind. On the one hand, at 182 pages, its’ length make it accessible to an audience that normally might not read this type of book. On the other hand, Bacevich often utilizes vocabulary not terribly accessible to readers more accustomed to newspapers; terms that lean more toward a purely academic environment. Professor Bacevich certainly does readers a favor by making them appreciate the full nuance of "profligacy" in its’ various forms, but on other occasions his useage seems a bit forced and will cause many readers to reach frequently for the dictionary. Cited in the notes, Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of Great Powers (1987) seems a spiritual cousin of this book, but Kennedy intended his book, at 700+ pages, purely for the academic environment; it just happened to become a bestseller. The book contains suitable footnotes, but lacks a bibliography. This leaves one to surmise that only the books cited informed this work. A more significantly developed bibliography would have greatly appreciated.
In the larger canon of works on Postwar American foreign policy, Bacevich’s tendencies lean more toward the Revisionist authors like Gabriel Kolko or the ubiquitous William Appleman Williams, author of the cornerstone book of the Revisionist school, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (1959). The irony of the current time may very well be that a book like this could gain rather mainstream acceptance because of the sheer disastrous results of current U.S. foreign policy. Bacevich’s credentials as a Retired U.S. Army colonel make him a difficult target for Traditionalists nattering on about the academic left. The strength of his argument lies very much in his even-handedness in criticizing both Democratic and Republican administrations since WW II. All of them contributed to the Imperial Presidency and the National Security apparatus. Moreover, one of his more fundamental arguments for changing conditions in the United States pleas with the electorate to take greater responsibility for holding leaders and the system in general to account. He accurately points out that expecting Obama to take office and subsequently change things, remains a dubious position to hold. In order to get different results the assumptions upon which the current power structure rests must be dismantled and recast in a more realistic, less ambitious mold. This will require an active electorate armed with the Internet to hold both mainstream media and the government itself to honestly addressing the needs of the nation.
Beyond Bacevich’s general argument, there remain two noticeable contributions that will no doubt rise out of this book. First, a healthy re-examination of NSC 68 could greatly inform the electorate on the origins of the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy since 1950. His scathing appraisal of the tone of the document should spawn a more mainstream historical review of the topic in general. Bacevich’s portrayal of Paul Nitze (NSC 68's primary author) paints a stark picture that demands further examination and scrutiny. The adoption of NSC 68 into dogma created an environment where military power became the sole arbiter of power and seriousness. To possess a less reverent attitude toward force from this point forward indicated "soft" and "idealistic" thinking. Perhaps the greatest irony here comes from the fact that NSC 68 came out of the Truman Administration which Senator Joseph McCarthy famously accused at the time of being "soft" on communism. NSC 68 was produced by a State Department that McCarthy made repeated attacks of being riddled with "communists" and "fellow travelers." (As a side note, I might add, that Nixon was elected to Congress employing a Red-baiting campaign accusing his rival of being a "pinko." Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s alter-ego in academic guise, turned the names of suspected communists over to J. Edgar Hoover while president of Harvard University.)
The second contribution will be the resurrection of Reinhold Niebuhr. Bacevich cited Niebuhr more than any other author, and heavily relied on his works in his conclusion. Niebuhr charted a career for himself as a realistic moralist through the 30s, 40s and 50s. Initially, by training and profession he was a minister, but his intellectual works make him now probably one the most serious American moralists and political philosophers that very few people know. The popularity of this book might bring about a Niebuhr revival. It would fit our times, and our predicament like a glove. Here are two of my favorite Niebuhr quotes:
A society which exempts ultimate principles from criticisms will find difficulty in dealing with the historical forces which have appropriated these truths as their special possession.
The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness
The realm of freedom which allows the individual to make his decision within, above and beyond the pressure of casual sequence is beyond the realm of scientific analysis.
The Irony of American History
I can think of nothing better than bringing this brilliant man’s work back into the focus of many. He certainly merits more widespread exposure among the electorate of today.
How Can the Daily Kos Community Use This Book
This book is available in hardback at Amazon for $14.40. If you order two the shipping will be free. You can order it here:
Order Here
I think this is a valuable book because the general thesis is non-partisan. Many of the Republicans I have talked to generally bemoan the course we have taken as a nation. We spend too much money, our foreign policy is a mess and the future requires sacrifice and unity. To many Republicans, Bacevich is the kind of man they respect. He did not spend his life in an academic ivory tower, similar to Jim Webb, he earned his position in the military and therefore he can savagely criticize military policy and practices without being subject to smears. He also advocates what I and many Kossacks embrace: AN INVOLVED ELECTORATE. This is the major point of intersection. No one in America can afford to ignore what has been going on, and its going to take all of us to hold leaders and more importantly the system to account. This book provides a starting point for many conversations on building the new coalition. As a final plea to all Kossacks, search for common ground. Just because you might disagree with a Conservative on abortion or taxes does not mean that you cannot find common ground on many of the principles outlined in Professor Bacevich’s book. When you find yourself arguing with someone over an issue they are not going to change their mind on, drop it. Switch to what you agree on and continue amicably. We are going to have enough of a majority that abortion and some other hot-button issues will not really be at stake. Don’t argue over issues that we have already won; build consensus where we need it. The aggressive foreign policy of the U.S. needs to be reversed permanently. That will require a new majority of many different kinds of people. Let’s work for it; it’s worth it.